SUPREME COURT of INDIA Page 1 of 14 PETITIONER: BALAJI RAGHAVAN [IN T.C.(C) NO.9/94]S.P

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 14 PETITIONER: BALAJI RAGHAVAN [IN T.C.(C) NO.9/94]S.P. ANAND [IN T.C.(C) N Vs. RESPONDENT: DATE OF JUDGMENT15/12/1995 BENCH: AHMADI A.M. (CJ) BENCH: AHMADI A.M. (CJ) KULDIP SINGH (J) JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) SINGH N.P. (J) AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J) CITATION: 1996 AIR 770 1996 SCC (1) 361 JT 1995 (9) 393 1995 SCALE (7)202 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T AHMADI, CJI : 1. The short but interesting question that arises for our consideration is :- "Whether the Awards, Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri (hereinafter called "The National Awards") are "Titles" within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the Constitution of India?" 2. Before dealing with the legal aspects of the question at issue, we may briefly set out the factual matrix of the two cases. The two petitions which have given rise to this issue were filed in the High Courts of Kerala and Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench), respectively. The petitioner in T.C.(C) No.9/94, Balaji Raghavan (hereinafter called 'Petitioner No.1') had filed O.P.No.2110/92 (hereinafter called 'the O.P') on February 13, 1992 before the Kerala High Court. The petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, sought, by way of a writ of mandamus, to prevent the respondent from conferring any of the National Awards. The petitioner in T.C.(C) No.1/95, S.P. Anand (hereinafter called 'petitioner No.2') filed Misc. Petition No.1900//92 (hereinafter called 'the M.P.') on August 24, 1992, before the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, praying for the same relief. 3. In the Kerala High Court, the two contesting parties filed written submissions and counters between September 30, 1992 and April 7, 1994. During this period, the High Court of Kerala did not hear oral arguments or pass any interim order. However, in the other case, a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench), on August 25, http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 14 1992, through an ex-parte order, issued notice to the respondent and also restrained it from conferring on any person or persons any of the National Awards, until further orders. The respondent filed T.P.(C) Nos.6 & 7 before this Court, seeking to transfer the case and to vacate the ex- parte order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated August 25, 1992. On January 8, 1993, a Division Bench of this Court, while refusing to transfer the case to itself, directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to give its decision on the application filed by the respondent for vacating the ex-parte order, on or before January 20, 1993. On January 20, 1993, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court vacated its earlier order dated August 25, 1992. Meanwhile, the respondent filed T.P.(C) No.811-812/93, by which it sought transfer of both the O.P. and the M.P. to this Court. On October 29, 1993, a Division Bench of this Court directed that the matter be posted before a bench presided over by the Chief Justice of India on January 17, 1994. On that day, a bench of this Court presided over by the then Chief Justice issued notice in T.P. Nos.811-812/93 and stayed further proceedings in both the petitions. Later, on March 7, 1994, this Court transferred both the aforesaid cases to itself. 4. Thereafter, on September 11, 1995, T.C.(C) Nos.9/94 and 1/95 were posted before a Division Bench of this Court. The last date for submission of written briefs by both sides was fixed and each side was allotted time for oral arguments. While counsel for the petitioner No.1 and the respondent submitted their written briefs within the stipulated time, the petitioner No.2, however, failed to do so. The date for the hearing before this Constitution Bench was fixed for November 14, 1995. On October, 31, 1995, the petitioner No.2 was given notice of this fact. However, he did not present himself before the Constitution Bench and no arguments were advanced on his behalf. Subsequently, after the conclusion of the hearing and the judgment being reserved, he sent communications dated November 1, 1995 and November 6, 1995, which were received by the Supreme Court on November 15, 1995 and November 21, 1995 respectively, requesting that his petition should be delisted or else he should be given a hearing by the Constitution Bench. It is not possible to accede to his request. A public interest litigant cannot choose his forum. Once the case stands transferred to the Supreme Court, he must make arrangements to present himself and advance arguments before it. A Constitution Bench cannot be expected to fix its schedule with a view to accommodating each and every litigant. Litigants must conform to the time schedule fixed by the Court. Hence we have refused to entertain his request. 5. It would now be relevant to notice the events connected with the institution of the National Awards. It is important to note that a policy of instituting National Awards and Honours had been adopted even before the Constitution of India was formally drafted. On February 13, 1948, the Prime Minister's Committee on Honours and Awards was set up under the Chairmanship of the Constitutional Adviser to the Government of India, Sir B.N. Rau. It's purpose was to recommend the number and nature of civil and military awards; the machinery for making recommendations for the granting of these awards; the frequency with which they were to be awarded, etc. The Committee worked on the premise that orders and decorations, carrying no title, were not meant to be prohibited. It submitted its report on March 9, 1948 and gave extensive suggestions in respect of each of the subjects upon which it had been required to give its http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 14 recommendations. Thereafter, in a series of meetings held between May, 30, 1948 and October 29, 1953, the Cabinet had occasion to discuss the nature and conditions of the proposed National Awards. 6. The National Awards were formally instituted in January, 1954 by two Presidential Notifications No.1- Pres./54 and No.2-Pres./54 dated January 2, 1954 which were subsequently superseded by four fresh Notifications, viz., No.1-Pres./55, 2-Pres./55, 3-Pres./55 and 4-Pres./55 dated January 8, 1955. The purpose for which these awards were to be given are as follows:- NAME OF THE AWARD PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS GIVEN ----------------- ----------------------------- Bharat Ratna For exceptional Service towards the advancement of art, literature & science & in recognition of public service of the highest order. Padma Vibhushan For exceptional and distinguished service in any field including service rendered by Govt. servants. Padma Bhushan For distinguished service of a high order in any field including the service rendered by Govt. servants. Padma Shri For distinguished service in any field including service rendered by Govt. servants. The aforementioned Presidential Notifications also provide that any person, without distinction of race, occupation, position or sex, shall be eligible for these awards and also that the decorations may be awarded posthumously. 7. A press Note was issued by the Government of India on April 17, 1968 making it clear that the practice of using Civilian Awards, such as, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri, as titles on letterheads, invitation cards, posters, books, etc., is against the scheme of the Government as the awards are not titles and their use along with the names of individuals is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution which has abolished titles. It was also emphasised in the press note that civilian awards should not be attached as suffixes or prefixes to the names of the awardees to give them the appearance of titles. 8. In the year 1969 and again in the year 1970, the late Acharya J.B. Kripalani, who was then a Member of the Lok Sabha, moved a non-official Bill entitled 'The Conferment of Decoration on Persons (Abolition) Bill, 1969' for their abolition. In the draft statement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Bill, the main points were thus stated:- a) Although Article 18 had abolished titles, they were sought to be brought in by the back door in the form of decorations. b) The decorations were not always awarded according to merit, and the Government of the day is not the best Judge of the merits or the eminence of the recipient. c) These "new titles" were at first given to very few, exceptional persons; this small stream had since become quite a flood. The Bill led to an elaborate debate in Parliament but was ultimately defeated. 9. On August 8, 1977, the institution of the National Awards was cancelled, vide Notification No.65-Pres/77. On January 25, 1980 the Government revived these awards by Notification No.25-Pres./80 which cancelled the earlier Notification No.65-Pres./77 dated August 8, 1997. Since then, the National Awards have been conferred annually on http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 14 the Republic Day. 10. We may now refer to the text of Article 18 of the Constitution which reads as follows : "18. Abolition of titles. -(1) No title, not being a military or academic distinction, shall be conferred by the State.

Load more